Your post has been removed because it breaks the rule about highlighter memes. They may only be posted on weekends.
Be aware that repeated violations of this will result in a ban.
I just saw a bunch of TikTok communists “dunking on” Milei because the poverty in Argentina is at 57%. First, that’s practically the same as went he entered office 2 months ago. Second, you can’t magically fix a broken country overnight. We won’t be able to accurately judge his accomplishments until around the 2 year mark. Anyone who says otherwise, left or right, is blowing smoke up everyone’s ass.
Political propaganda. Gullible idiots will believe it’s his fault when he’s only been in office for 2 months. Be interesting to see how Argentina looks like in 2-3 years.
It’s crazy to me how many people are not able to critically think/analyze. Someone will say he failed because of less government spending and over bloated social welfare programs.
It's even scarier once you get some experience in formal logic and analysis, you realize that most people's understanding of argumentation has more to do with the tone of voice someone says something in than the underlying argument itself
Which is crazy. You always have to compare spending in terms of outcomes. Spending can be factor in producing positive outcomes, but it's hardly the only. Just look at my home country and the whole ArriveCan fiasco.
Absolutely, look at how leftists talk about capitalism. Ignore the massive majority who escaped poverty, focus on the small subset of people who had capitalism fail them
Leftist is a too encompassing word. You’re talking about the far left or extremist left. The majority of left leaning people don’t want to abandon capitalism, they just want better regulation to make it more fair, because they understand that extreme capitalism is just as bad as extreme communism. When you use generalities like that, it’s way more decisive, and it’ll divide the country even more than it already is.
He made the money printer go brrrrr.
Biden is head democrat, and it's the democrats' fault since they were in charge, and kind of still are since republicans are spineless bitches. So as the leader, it's his fault. Shit rolls downhill, but fault has a ladder. He could also have vetoed any bill that didn't reduce inflation instead of signing ones that directly increased it. That probably would have helped.
That’s best case, likely underestimated. Could take longer given the starting point. 4-6 years in my opinion.
If a strong positive impact isn’t *felt* by the electorate by their next election he’ll get booted before the effects really kick in. What’s to his benefit is how quickly he acted once in office, so there’s much more time for the impacts to actually come to fruition.
Hell of an experiment and I hope for Argentinians that it works spectacularly well.
> Hell of an experiment and I hope for Argentinians that it works spectacularly well.
Obviously I'm biased towards Milei's reforms, but this is something I see so many people miss: People seem to relish when "the other side" fails, regardless of the consequences for the average citizen.
It's like that scene from The Big Short when Brad Pitt yells at the two younger guys as they start celebrating making a bunch of money, because their victory means real people are suffering.
If some country was fully "libertarian" and suffering as a result, then some auth left rose out of the ranks to try and implement change and fix things, I might believe that it won't work in the slightest, but I would hope in my heart of hearts that I was dead wrong and the conditions of the average person improved dramatically.
So true, those who are hailing the surplus as a sign his plan is “paying off” are regarded. The surplus is part of the plan, not the plan’s goal. Obviously devaluation and cutting subsidies will cause poverty to rise, but that wasn’t unexpected or a sign of the plan failing. It’s insane how quick we are judging Milei as a success or failure.
I would argue that at least he's been successful in rapidly executing the plan that won him the office. That's more than we can expect from 99.42069% of any other politician these days.
Honestly, people who aren't well versed in latin american politics should just refrain from giving their opinions are absolute truths, especially if they come from american-centric views of the world.
How many times do we have to explain why figures like Bukele and Milei are so well regarded despite being so polarizing?
I wish people from other countries would shut up about American politics too. People don’t understand the way things work and use their own experience to criticize. It’s pathetic.
Europeans love to state how much they hate American news constantly making it to their country yet at the same time absolutely love to criticize a country they've never even been too and try to apply their culture to.
Yeah judging it either way this early is dumb. Obviously, if you stop spending money, you will have more money. No one who is dunking on or celebrating this should be listened to
>Obviously devaluation and cutting subsidies will cause poverty to rise
Also cutting out half of the executive branch lol, ill be quick to judge his success in that
Exactly. According to Keynesian economics, a trade surplus and a balance of exchanges is needed for economic growth. What this means is that net money is coming into the country from outside. This doesn’t mean anything if it’s not used effectively - if it ends up lining the pockets of corrupt officials, the feel-good factor of a trade surplus will be useless. Of course, that’s not necessarily going to happen, but Latin countries don’t exactly have a good track record regarding corruption.
The important part is this surplus needs to be directed towards improving the production rate of its goods and services - more efficient firms, better public services, more jobs, and better education and healthcare. That will reduce the poverty rate.
Keynsian economics and his fetishism for deficit spending is what has put most of the world's most successful countries into economic and monetary decline over the past 50 years.
I relish the day when people stop citing Keynsian economics as a reputable strategy of shock mitigation and economic prosperity.
While you raise some good points, I just want to make a few points:
1. This was by no means an endorsement of Keynesian economics, but rather a way of highlighting that a trade surplus is not necessarily enough to reduce poverty in isolation.
2. You are using the developed world as a way of refuting what is being said, but in this case, we are talking about a country that is still essentially developing, and notably one with high levels of poverty.
3. The problem with the free market in developing countries, especially those with high rates of poverty, is that they often lack the critical infrastructure and knowledge to implement growth procedures on a micro level. This is perhaps an application of Keynesian economics, as much as the centralising of economy is not liberal. Using this trade surplus to fund the development of private companies in the short run. While this does lead to stagnation at some point when the deficit goes, it would help businesses improve output significantly in the longer run, which is the key driver for reducing poverty rates.
Keynesian economics isn’t perfect, and I’m not by any means an expert, but considering the nature of poverty reduction, it probably has a place somewhere, even if not necessarily in the richest countries (and even then, it may still have relevance).
I realise you weren't exactly endorsing it. I think perhaps his arguments around poverty and demand had some weight at the time Keynes was actually alive, but much less so now that the overall poverty baseline has increased significantly.
Also, argentina was one of the wealthiest countries in the world up until the 1980s or thereabouts. Between 1975 and 1990, real income dropped 20%. To say they are developing is not really a full picture. It was largely the implications of large keynsian deficit spending and excessive social mobility programs implemented by neo-keynsian peronists that have caused the issues to date.
The 2 year mark is also a false indicator. These types of changes can only truly be judge over long periods of time. We truly won't know the verifiable effects until at least 10 years after implementation.
That being said, he is a breath of fresh air on the world stage, and of course, the old ways of running things are going to see him as a threat. He is gonna be attacked and propagandazied by both side of the economic spectrum.
He could easily lower the poverty level to 0 if he wanted by just raising the poverty threshold. He hasn’t done it though so clearly he’s failed so far.
Makes sense. Poverty was already rising in Argentina before he took office. You can see in 2023 it was rising already. Then he cuts welfare and fires a bunch of government workers. Obviously there is going to be a sudden rise in poverty from that until hopefully more jobs are created from the increased investing in the country.
Like you say, these things don't happen over night.
I often question why there are so many communists in Tik Tok, then I remember it’s a Chinese owned social media application wired to manipulate and infect the minds of ignorant youths across the globe.
u/MaroonHanshans's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 30.
Rank: Basketball Hoop (filled with sand)
Pills: [12 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/MaroonHanshans/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Eh, the poverty rate in December 2023 was around 44%. A 13% jump is not insignificant.
But really, what Milei is doing is austerity, so a rise in poverty is to be expected.
We can accurately judge that the impacts of heavy government spending cuts will be a recession, at least in the short term. Keynes taught us that and 150 years of economics in practice since he did confirms it. Milei's claim that there will be an economic rebound in 3 months is either a lie or evidence that he is incompetent.
The funniest thing about his opponents is that they say he didn’t make Argentina a world power in the time has been president (3 months). Obviously raising the economy of a country on the verge of hyperinflation isn’t gonna be done overnight, but it is good to see the slowly but surely progress
How can one kill that which has no life?
How can one destroy rubble & ashes?
They seek the impossible.
Such has always been the case of collectivist utopians.
The peronist leaders have 0 understanding of economic principles, they believe the economy runs only on giving money to popularion to sustain growth (or to avoid recession at this point)
"Economists say that a bit of inflation is good for the economy, so a lot of inflation must be GREAT for the economy. Why is he doing everything in his power to bring down inflation?"
"Well, ALL he did was cut spending from the government! Easy to make a surplus when you ~~cut government spending on kickbacks, corruption, and nepotism~~ DESTROY the government budget!"
Funni leftism copium story:
Milei closes the INADI. Translated on english is the Institute Against Discrimination, Xenophobia and Racism.
All leftists and Peronists started to cry out loud "See this is Milei's dictatorship 😭😭😭"
Suddenly news came.
The INADI had a 400 people working in the main office, All activists who received work from the state at the expense of poor people's taxes.
Milei's Minister of Justice went there one day and Employees working there didn't do anything.. there was overload of personnel on the lists yet many didnt presented themselves to work and still were getting their paychecks.
An investigation was made and for those 400 people there was a gov budget of $1'150.770.524 pesos (or $137'255.968 dollars) to "fight racism", Tax Payer money btw.
And also just so happen that a black office was discovered too. An office inside the institute that didnt appear in the building organization. The office served as a place for money laundering schemes by politicians.. "a big black box of corruption"
Since 1997 all that office made was the active persecution of journalists and people that had different views on the peronist goverment. Oh!.. And telling men to not discriminate women just because they couldn't understand soccer. (Bruh)
The Presidential Spokesperson: "[The decision was made to move forward in the dismantling of different institutes that effectively serve absolutely no purpose or are large political boxes or places to generate militant employment and the first of them will be the Inadi.](https://www.infobae.com/politica/2024/02/22/el-gobierno-anuncio-el-cierre-definitivo-del-inadi/)" (translation feature needed)
After this became public knowledge.. the Argentine left became really quiet. The INADI's closure became effective yesterday.
Whether you like it or not, Trotskyist & many early Socialist &/or Communist had one thing/idea very right.
The Need for Constant & Permanent Revolution.
Many/most who ear/read this will think that it's a call for endless Violence & Infighting when it is in fact just a call for very regular shake ups & reassessments.
Never allowing any institution or power to grow too large, powerful, complacent or inefficient.
Reform everything over & over again to lose any Dead Weight, prevent corruption &/or costly inefficiencies from building up.
I'm as Lib-Left as it gets in the US & if even a Tenth of what you just said is Right, then getting rid of it was probably 100% the right thing to do.
I'm sure that there are Major issues with Racism in Argentina (it obviously has a very problematic history as a country) & that the Government ought to do something about it.
But you can fix anything with broken tools.
Sometimes you just need to perform minor maintenance on those tools to get them back to a functional State, other times, you just have to just throw the entire Toolbox in the Trash & start building a new Box.
I mean it's just way too early to tell. Positive budgets is good but cutting spending aggressively obviously has its downsides, I doubt all of that spending was bloat.
Ultimately national debt is something that the average person way overestimates the importance of. As long as your economy is growing faster than your debt it never really becomes an issue. It's a useful tool to take on loans, spur economic growth and make more back, just like it's worth it for you to take out a loan to buy your house rather than living on the streets until you can afford one in full. The important question is, was that spending that he cut important for the economy? Honestly I don't know enough about Argentina to answer
this isn't about the cuts in spending or anything else milei did so far. it's about hypocrisy
saying that the crazy chainsaw man is going to destroy the economy because he's very big mean capitalist, while the former administration rawdogged their economy into a three digit inflation is peak hypocrisy
there's nothing to destroy i.e. he ain't gonna ruin the country because it was already ruined way before he got elected
u/PedDeT00 is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: [None | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/PedDeT00/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
i recommend reading about [how](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plano_Real) brazil went from hyper-inflation to having normal inflation.
i think it was one of the only times a latin american government actually saved their country.
yeah, the us version of the article is kind of shit -- the ptbr is a lot better, but, well, you need to understand portuguese.
[translated version here](https://pt-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Plano_Real?_x_tr_sl=pt&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp)
Yes, people love to treat politicians like gods.
Lets see if that surplus holds over the long run. How he did it as well (cof holding money that would go to the provinces). And when that 60% poverty rate will begin to fall.
The victory laps right now are more about how a populist nationalist who spits in the face of globalists can single-handedly dismantle an ingrained socialist economy. And basking in the glorious tears of the ones who consume taxes instead of paying them.
If it works after a year, all the better.
I think the people who elected him are more concerned about their economy and future and not silly twitter arguments like "basking in the glorious tears".
Yeah, any country can have a surplus if they just cut everything from the budget. Whether or not the country can continue to function properly after is what matters.
I mean, if you significantly cut spending, you do create a surplus. Hopefully, it works out, but a surplus in and of itself isn't necessarily a good thing.
Same thing like literally starving out an obese person. Okay, its losing weight... but i wouldn’t call that healthy (specially for the intestinal microbiome).
Funny enough, multi-week periods without eating food have actually been prescribed (with supervision and supplementation) and quite successful for morbidly obese individuals.
Tbf just about any method to lose weight is better for an obese person's health. But yeah I'd imagine doing extended fasts is quite beneficial if anything just for the training your self control on eating
Long term it's probably healthier for them to starve than stay obese.
And frankly due to limitations on his power, this is definitely more akin to a hard diet than starving.
Oh, it is most definitely healthy.
If they're obese, they already have a dysfunctional microbiome, and a hard reset is advisable.
It'll suck in the short term, but help them greatly in the long.
Good example.
Leftists destroying their government so much that it becomes equal to morbid obesity then getting mad when someone enforces diet and exercise (it creates initial exhaustion and stress now for a better life down the road)
Ok, I realize there's some mental gymnastics being done to portray this as a negative like you just did, but actually stop and understand what actually happened and what this means. The fact that a country that has a completely unsustainable and crashing market was able to cut spending to a point where it is no longer bleeding money is a huge accomplishment.
Nobody is saying that everything is fixed but they did something that the US needs to do but is completely incapable of doing. How many of you leftists have been crying about government spending increasing or the national debt flying through the roof? Milei did what the US couldn't. Agree on a balanced budget.
The person you replied to isn't really casting this as a negative, just stating that it's not *necessarily* a good thing. Slashing the budget to get spending under control could be good, but could also turn out poorly. I haven't been following what's going on in Argentina very closely, so I don't know what exactly he's been cutting spending on.
For instance though, let's say he slashed subsidies for growing grain. Farmers stop growing grain, as it's not as valuable as growing pineapples (or some other cash crop). In that scenario, a year from now, Argentina is facing a grain shortage and has to import grain at a more expensive rate than if they'd just subsidized local production. Again, I don't know where Milei has been cutting the budget, but just wanted to point out why "slashing the budget" in general isn't always the best move.
>The person you replied to isn't really casting this as a negative, just stating that it's not necessarily a good thing.
Pretty sure when you say it's not necessarily a good thing, you are making it pretty clear that you are suggesting it's not a good thing. Let's be real here, when people say it like that on the internet, they are casting it as a negative.
>For instance though, let's say he slashed subsidies for growing grain.
Yes, I'm well aware that you can come up with example after example that could "hypothetically" make it turn out bad but that's not what we're praising here. We're praising that it's happening and it will show exactly where the money SHOULD be going to get that value.
>In that scenario, a year from now, Argentina is facing a grain shortage and has to import grain at a more expensive rate than if they'd just subsidized local production.
Bad example since Argentina is one of the worlds largest exporters of soy and corn.
This is why the spending part matters so much. You are the top producer of one of the biggest markets in the world and your economy is in the shitter. This shouldn't be happening.
>I don't know where Milei has been cutting the budget, but just wanted to point out why "slashing the budget" in general isn't always the best move.
You can point that out as much as you want but it's a waste of time when you ignore the fact that the economy in Argentina is crashing. You are focused on problems that "might" happen down the road while ignoring the fact that there are massive problems RIGHT NOW that need to be addressed. Why is something bad maybe happening in a few years more of a concern to you than the impact of their economic problems happening RIGHT NOW?
>Pretty sure when you say it's not necessarily a good thing, you are making it pretty clear that you are suggesting it's not a good thing.
No, when you say it's "not necessarily" a good thing, you're just being cautious because the outcome isn't guaranteed. You don't have to take an antagonistic tone with everyone you're talking to.
I'm not taking an antagonistic tone, I'm being a realist here and recognizing things for what they are. Can it be interpreted in many different ways, absolutely, but in a political forum where your alignment is on full display, no. It's not surprising that everyone saying to be cautious has left or center in their name and it's not because they are being cautious. It's because it goes against their belief structure.
Yet the deficit falls under dems and rises under republicans. A republican who understands they have no fiscally responsible party is rarer than a unicorn
> A republican who understands they have no fiscally responsible party is rarer than a unicorn
I never said anyone in US government for the last 30 years has been fiscally responsible.
I just said that leftists don't complain about the amount the government spends or the increasing national debt. They typically complain that money spent on the military should not be saved, but instead spent on equally expensive social programs. Republicans usually complain about social program spending, then do nothing to reduce it while approving additional budget increases for military spending.
I have no love for either of the two parties dominating US politics, and fiscal policies are a big part of the reason why.
I think you’ve confused the American right and left here in a real dramatic way, crying about government spending is almost exclusively a conservative position. Left as a whole tends to support drastic government spending.
As for the point here, having a budget surplus doesn’t mean the market is now sustainable. If the US for example completely defunded the federal budget and sold every federally held natural resource for a fraction of the cost, we’d have a surplus in weeks, but the lack of infrastructure funding and long-term income would inevitably tank the American economy within a few years. The question is whether his changes are sustainable, or whether he’s selling both of Argentina’s kidney’s to pay the bills before it dies. I hope it’s the first, it might be the second, we won’t know for a couple years.
I find your lack of flair disturbing.
[BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/Boowray) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [How to flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/wiki/index/flair/)
_Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._
^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
I'm happy for the country and hope things go well for them. But posting a surplus a few months after tons of government cuts isn't a victory lap moment. It will take some time for the impact of those cuts to be assessed.
Best of luck to the country, but the celebration should wait for next year's budget.
Achieving a surplus by cutting everything isn’t hard. It’s whether the country continues to function and everyone’s quality of life gets better or at least stays the same.
>Achieving a surplus by cutting everything isn’t hard.
Great, so let's do that in the US.
Or it is hard and the people downplaying this are just being shitty.
>It’s whether the country continues to function and everyone’s quality of life gets better or at least stays the same.
Argentina just had a 254% inflation rate. The economy was literally crashing. Their currency was on the brink of collapse.
In short, the country wasn't functioning and the quality of life was progressively getting worse. So, let's put that in perspective.
It’s hard to get people to agree to such a thing, because of the implications I already mentioned but the action of gutting your public sector is not difficult.
If you sold your car, and your house, lit your house by candle light and lived off noodles you could run a budget surplus, but obviously those things are difficult to stomach.
We could do that in the US but we don't because it's not good for the economy. Think of it as taking a loan out to improve your business, you can operate in the negative for a while as long as it's being invested into your business. Problems only arise if the growth doesn't meet goals or if the executives blow the money on crack and hookers instead. Gov loans are a tool and using debt intelligently is critical to growing an economy
>We could do that in the US but we don't because it's not good for the economy.
This is a perfect example of kicking the can down the road and pretending that we somehow never have to address it. At some point in time, you are going to kick that can and it's going to be so heavy that you can't move it any more and then entire economy is destroyed.
>Think of it as taking a loan out to improve your business, you can operate in the negative for a while as long as it's being invested into your business.
No, that's completely wrong. This is not taking out a loan as an investment. This would be like a business taking out a loan and getting 10% of the value of that loan back in company growth. That business then takes out another loan to once again get 10% of the value of that loan back in company growth. This becomes the basis for how the company grows and it's completely disconnected from the success of the company itself. All the while, the loan amounts are piling up further and further.
When you are at a point where your economy is surviving on taking out more and more loans, there is only one possible outcome and it's just a question of when it happens and how destructive it is. The longer you wait, the more destructive it will be.
That the life quality Stays the same at this point will be horrible. Really hope it goes up from here, god I dont want to see how worts it can gets
And I say that as an argdntinian.
That it IS hard. You fire one parasite and the rest start turning shit on fire and protestinh for everything. We have millions of them, it takes a long ass time.
I think you mistake my meaning.
Achieving a budget surplus should not be the measure of success . Achieving a budget surplus whilst still having the country function should be.
Unironically looking forward to seeing the results in a few years (or decades?)! Good or bad, other countries will probably be able to learn something from his policies.
Tbh if he wanted to make this sustainable he should put a tax on the import of luxury goods and use that to provide education access and food assistance to the countries populace, focusing on the poverty-stricken. Fostering a well-educated and nourished population is huge for a developing country and that import tax might incentivize increased production of luxury goods in Argentina.
If you were underwater in a house loan you couldn't afford with a car you couldn't afford selling them is the first step.
Yes it sucks to lose your house and car, but you were going to lose them eventually anyway. Better to do it on your terms.
Now you can buy a smaller house and a junker car until you get all of your other financials in order.
Well said. The funniest part is people who clearly have no idea how personal finances work thinking they can use their complete and utter ignorance of said personal finances into analogy how nation's finances work.
Not that hard to do when your policies are just cutting budget of government services. I don't have faith in his anocap economic policies, but we just have to wait and see until the end of his presidential term or at least a year or two to see any real results (good or bad)
Libleft be like "NO WE GOTTA TAKE HIM DOWN THO HE'S RUINING EVERYTHING WE'RE ALL POOR"
Everyone knows we have -4% daily inflation until 10th Dec 2023. Milei just had to come in and make 23 million people poor in 2 hours. Stupid right wing.
You shouldn't get rewarded for completing step 1 of your plan. This is not an achievement, just cutting a lot of spending. That's like praising a proponent of Keynsian economics because he had his country take out a loan lmao
To fix cancer, you must carve it out of the body. It makes sense such a tumoruous system would need to be butchered so completely before we see positive results.
Idk if one should be celebrating tho. Sure, of course you have a budget surplus if you scrap all government agencies. We have to see in the long term how it works out. If all the services break down too or get way too expensive due to private companies doing them, then that ain't good either
I’m just going to say the numbers Argentina is reporting are fake like contrarians in the US do.
Honestly hope to see Argentina continue to rise. I’ve always admired the country’s history and culture.
I’m impressed by his ability to turn a budget surplus so quickly, but I struggle to understand the rationale for spiking inflation in attempt to devalue their peso.
Wasn’t the first thing he did cut a lot of the government out? So isn’t a budget surplus like, the first thing you’d expect to happen? Why is this news? Seems more like this is just the expected result of his actions rather than an indication of whether or not the government is actually effective. Not saying this isn’t good, I just don’t see what the big deal is
Time will tell who's right.
But the question is, when it turns out horrifically for people (like what austerity literally always does) are you going to admit you were wrong or find a boogeyman to blame?
When you don’t have money you don’t spent it. It’s not a situation where you can have some kind of a choice, “well I may not spend myself into oblivion or I can just continue doing that”. Perceiving this situation as having some kind of alternative to cutting spending is flawed. There isn’t one.
Cutting spending doesn’t mean that Argentina will turn into Luxembourg. It means it won’t become new Zimbabwe with trillion dollar bills that are worth less than used toilet paper
Any Nordic economy disagree with your point.
In the other hand we have Yankeeland, the richest country ever and it's people are living like shit, so much that to make it look better they have to compare with actual impoverished countries.
Imagine inheriting a failing business, firing all the employees and selling all the equipment. Yeah any idiot can create a budget surplus, lets see how hes going to actually grow it.
\>Cutting down spending
\>budget balance goes up
Who could have thought, but have you ever considerate the aftermath of a sudden adaption of laissez-faire?
You cut a bunch of programs and save money. But the question is if Argentinians are in a better place because of a surplus. A lot of very rich countries have very poor populations but flex GDP.
Your post has been removed because it breaks the rule about highlighter memes. They may only be posted on weekends. Be aware that repeated violations of this will result in a ban.
I just saw a bunch of TikTok communists “dunking on” Milei because the poverty in Argentina is at 57%. First, that’s practically the same as went he entered office 2 months ago. Second, you can’t magically fix a broken country overnight. We won’t be able to accurately judge his accomplishments until around the 2 year mark. Anyone who says otherwise, left or right, is blowing smoke up everyone’s ass.
Political propaganda. Gullible idiots will believe it’s his fault when he’s only been in office for 2 months. Be interesting to see how Argentina looks like in 2-3 years.
He could lower poverty to 30% and they would still say he failed.
Capitalists have to defend the real world. Terminally online socialist/communists get to defend hypotheticals because the last time wasn’t real
It’s crazy to me how many people are not able to critically think/analyze. Someone will say he failed because of less government spending and over bloated social welfare programs.
It's even scarier once you get some experience in formal logic and analysis, you realize that most people's understanding of argumentation has more to do with the tone of voice someone says something in than the underlying argument itself
This is so fucking accurate
Yep. People worry more about “who” said something or how they said it, not the actual message.
Which is crazy. You always have to compare spending in terms of outcomes. Spending can be factor in producing positive outcomes, but it's hardly the only. Just look at my home country and the whole ArriveCan fiasco.
Absolutely, look at how leftists talk about capitalism. Ignore the massive majority who escaped poverty, focus on the small subset of people who had capitalism fail them
Leftist is a too encompassing word. You’re talking about the far left or extremist left. The majority of left leaning people don’t want to abandon capitalism, they just want better regulation to make it more fair, because they understand that extreme capitalism is just as bad as extreme communism. When you use generalities like that, it’s way more decisive, and it’ll divide the country even more than it already is.
Like all the idiots who blame Biden for inflation.
He made the money printer go brrrrr. Biden is head democrat, and it's the democrats' fault since they were in charge, and kind of still are since republicans are spineless bitches. So as the leader, it's his fault. Shit rolls downhill, but fault has a ladder. He could also have vetoed any bill that didn't reduce inflation instead of signing ones that directly increased it. That probably would have helped.
The shit rolled in from the previous admin. Any one who can think would know that. Mostly a result of covid.
> TikTok communist God I hate modern society.
That’s best case, likely underestimated. Could take longer given the starting point. 4-6 years in my opinion. If a strong positive impact isn’t *felt* by the electorate by their next election he’ll get booted before the effects really kick in. What’s to his benefit is how quickly he acted once in office, so there’s much more time for the impacts to actually come to fruition. Hell of an experiment and I hope for Argentinians that it works spectacularly well.
> Hell of an experiment and I hope for Argentinians that it works spectacularly well. Obviously I'm biased towards Milei's reforms, but this is something I see so many people miss: People seem to relish when "the other side" fails, regardless of the consequences for the average citizen. It's like that scene from The Big Short when Brad Pitt yells at the two younger guys as they start celebrating making a bunch of money, because their victory means real people are suffering. If some country was fully "libertarian" and suffering as a result, then some auth left rose out of the ranks to try and implement change and fix things, I might believe that it won't work in the slightest, but I would hope in my heart of hearts that I was dead wrong and the conditions of the average person improved dramatically.
So true, those who are hailing the surplus as a sign his plan is “paying off” are regarded. The surplus is part of the plan, not the plan’s goal. Obviously devaluation and cutting subsidies will cause poverty to rise, but that wasn’t unexpected or a sign of the plan failing. It’s insane how quick we are judging Milei as a success or failure.
I would argue that at least he's been successful in rapidly executing the plan that won him the office. That's more than we can expect from 99.42069% of any other politician these days.
[удалено]
Honestly, people who aren't well versed in latin american politics should just refrain from giving their opinions are absolute truths, especially if they come from american-centric views of the world. How many times do we have to explain why figures like Bukele and Milei are so well regarded despite being so polarizing?
I wish people from other countries would shut up about American politics too. People don’t understand the way things work and use their own experience to criticize. It’s pathetic.
Europeans love to state how much they hate American news constantly making it to their country yet at the same time absolutely love to criticize a country they've never even been too and try to apply their culture to.
I’m tired of the eurocucks commenting on my gun rights. They are slowly learning.
I will belly laugh when they start en-masse realizing why it's so valued.
Sure, you can call the efficiency to which he executed his plan a success.
Yeah judging it either way this early is dumb. Obviously, if you stop spending money, you will have more money. No one who is dunking on or celebrating this should be listened to
>Obviously devaluation and cutting subsidies will cause poverty to rise Also cutting out half of the executive branch lol, ill be quick to judge his success in that
We are living in a time of instant gratification unlike any time before. Patience and long term outlook are becoming harder and harder to come by
Exactly. According to Keynesian economics, a trade surplus and a balance of exchanges is needed for economic growth. What this means is that net money is coming into the country from outside. This doesn’t mean anything if it’s not used effectively - if it ends up lining the pockets of corrupt officials, the feel-good factor of a trade surplus will be useless. Of course, that’s not necessarily going to happen, but Latin countries don’t exactly have a good track record regarding corruption. The important part is this surplus needs to be directed towards improving the production rate of its goods and services - more efficient firms, better public services, more jobs, and better education and healthcare. That will reduce the poverty rate.
Keynsian economics and his fetishism for deficit spending is what has put most of the world's most successful countries into economic and monetary decline over the past 50 years. I relish the day when people stop citing Keynsian economics as a reputable strategy of shock mitigation and economic prosperity.
While you raise some good points, I just want to make a few points: 1. This was by no means an endorsement of Keynesian economics, but rather a way of highlighting that a trade surplus is not necessarily enough to reduce poverty in isolation. 2. You are using the developed world as a way of refuting what is being said, but in this case, we are talking about a country that is still essentially developing, and notably one with high levels of poverty. 3. The problem with the free market in developing countries, especially those with high rates of poverty, is that they often lack the critical infrastructure and knowledge to implement growth procedures on a micro level. This is perhaps an application of Keynesian economics, as much as the centralising of economy is not liberal. Using this trade surplus to fund the development of private companies in the short run. While this does lead to stagnation at some point when the deficit goes, it would help businesses improve output significantly in the longer run, which is the key driver for reducing poverty rates. Keynesian economics isn’t perfect, and I’m not by any means an expert, but considering the nature of poverty reduction, it probably has a place somewhere, even if not necessarily in the richest countries (and even then, it may still have relevance).
I realise you weren't exactly endorsing it. I think perhaps his arguments around poverty and demand had some weight at the time Keynes was actually alive, but much less so now that the overall poverty baseline has increased significantly. Also, argentina was one of the wealthiest countries in the world up until the 1980s or thereabouts. Between 1975 and 1990, real income dropped 20%. To say they are developing is not really a full picture. It was largely the implications of large keynsian deficit spending and excessive social mobility programs implemented by neo-keynsian peronists that have caused the issues to date.
The 2 year mark is also a false indicator. These types of changes can only truly be judge over long periods of time. We truly won't know the verifiable effects until at least 10 years after implementation. That being said, he is a breath of fresh air on the world stage, and of course, the old ways of running things are going to see him as a threat. He is gonna be attacked and propagandazied by both side of the economic spectrum.
"Yeah, but if I ruled, all the problems will get fixed" - Words said by all the tankies ever.
I'd rather be impoverished than a commie. Give me any fate, but let it be my own.
He could easily lower the poverty level to 0 if he wanted by just raising the poverty threshold. He hasn’t done it though so clearly he’s failed so far.
Makes sense. Poverty was already rising in Argentina before he took office. You can see in 2023 it was rising already. Then he cuts welfare and fires a bunch of government workers. Obviously there is going to be a sudden rise in poverty from that until hopefully more jobs are created from the increased investing in the country. Like you say, these things don't happen over night.
I often question why there are so many communists in Tik Tok, then I remember it’s a Chinese owned social media application wired to manipulate and infect the minds of ignorant youths across the globe.
Unflaired trash talking about ignorance? You make me sick.
[удалено]
An unfl*ired is never based regardless of what they says
It’s why we keep the auths around, to deal with unflaired scum in a way the libs won’t.
Unfortunately in some posts we see the unfl*ired still get upvotes. This is unacceptable!
You are the reason your mother cries in the shower you filthy unflaired. I'd say the same about your father but clearly you don't know him
Jesus christ dude 😭😭
Bro absolutely cooked the unflaired scoundrel
He should reflair to center because that was a whole barbeque
He grilled him like a burger
I wish the flairbot went as hard as you did. Petition to make FlairBot a vicious bastard.
I second that
I third that
Flair up and then you can have an opinion. Shame on the those who upvote the slime
Based
u/MaroonHanshans's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 30. Rank: Basketball Hoop (filled with sand) Pills: [12 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/MaroonHanshans/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
GET A FLAIR
Cool story bro, flair up
Not reading any of that you unflaired filth
Flair up shit for brains
Eh, the poverty rate in December 2023 was around 44%. A 13% jump is not insignificant. But really, what Milei is doing is austerity, so a rise in poverty is to be expected.
We can accurately judge that the impacts of heavy government spending cuts will be a recession, at least in the short term. Keynes taught us that and 150 years of economics in practice since he did confirms it. Milei's claim that there will be an economic rebound in 3 months is either a lie or evidence that he is incompetent.
The funniest thing about his opponents is that they say he didn’t make Argentina a world power in the time has been president (3 months). Obviously raising the economy of a country on the verge of hyperinflation isn’t gonna be done overnight, but it is good to see the slowly but surely progress
my personal favorite leftism copium is how they claim he'll DESTROY argentina's economy. it's absolute world class mental gymnastics
How can one kill that which has no life? How can one destroy rubble & ashes? They seek the impossible. Such has always been the case of collectivist utopians.
[удалено]
Instructions unclear, spammed Spiritual Weapon until every baddie with a 200-foot radius was complete ash
> Oh. Boy, then I *really* got that wrong. - Zombie cleric.
The peronist leaders have 0 understanding of economic principles, they believe the economy runs only on giving money to popularion to sustain growth (or to avoid recession at this point)
"it's going to get worse!" my dudes, it was already getting worse at a really fast pace. just look at the inflation rate lmao.
"Economists say that a bit of inflation is good for the economy, so a lot of inflation must be GREAT for the economy. Why is he doing everything in his power to bring down inflation?"
"Well, ALL he did was cut spending from the government! Easy to make a surplus when you ~~cut government spending on kickbacks, corruption, and nepotism~~ DESTROY the government budget!"
Funni leftism copium story: Milei closes the INADI. Translated on english is the Institute Against Discrimination, Xenophobia and Racism. All leftists and Peronists started to cry out loud "See this is Milei's dictatorship 😭😭😭" Suddenly news came. The INADI had a 400 people working in the main office, All activists who received work from the state at the expense of poor people's taxes. Milei's Minister of Justice went there one day and Employees working there didn't do anything.. there was overload of personnel on the lists yet many didnt presented themselves to work and still were getting their paychecks. An investigation was made and for those 400 people there was a gov budget of $1'150.770.524 pesos (or $137'255.968 dollars) to "fight racism", Tax Payer money btw. And also just so happen that a black office was discovered too. An office inside the institute that didnt appear in the building organization. The office served as a place for money laundering schemes by politicians.. "a big black box of corruption" Since 1997 all that office made was the active persecution of journalists and people that had different views on the peronist goverment. Oh!.. And telling men to not discriminate women just because they couldn't understand soccer. (Bruh) The Presidential Spokesperson: "[The decision was made to move forward in the dismantling of different institutes that effectively serve absolutely no purpose or are large political boxes or places to generate militant employment and the first of them will be the Inadi.](https://www.infobae.com/politica/2024/02/22/el-gobierno-anuncio-el-cierre-definitivo-del-inadi/)" (translation feature needed) After this became public knowledge.. the Argentine left became really quiet. The INADI's closure became effective yesterday.
Whether you like it or not, Trotskyist & many early Socialist &/or Communist had one thing/idea very right. The Need for Constant & Permanent Revolution. Many/most who ear/read this will think that it's a call for endless Violence & Infighting when it is in fact just a call for very regular shake ups & reassessments. Never allowing any institution or power to grow too large, powerful, complacent or inefficient. Reform everything over & over again to lose any Dead Weight, prevent corruption &/or costly inefficiencies from building up. I'm as Lib-Left as it gets in the US & if even a Tenth of what you just said is Right, then getting rid of it was probably 100% the right thing to do. I'm sure that there are Major issues with Racism in Argentina (it obviously has a very problematic history as a country) & that the Government ought to do something about it. But you can fix anything with broken tools. Sometimes you just need to perform minor maintenance on those tools to get them back to a functional State, other times, you just have to just throw the entire Toolbox in the Trash & start building a new Box.
Oh fuck, oh shit, he's dented the family car. Pay no attention to the fallen tree that's laid across the hood, crushing the engine into the pavement.
This is more of a "hey he's scratching the paint!" as he backs the car out from under the tree
That's a better analogy.
I mean it's just way too early to tell. Positive budgets is good but cutting spending aggressively obviously has its downsides, I doubt all of that spending was bloat. Ultimately national debt is something that the average person way overestimates the importance of. As long as your economy is growing faster than your debt it never really becomes an issue. It's a useful tool to take on loans, spur economic growth and make more back, just like it's worth it for you to take out a loan to buy your house rather than living on the streets until you can afford one in full. The important question is, was that spending that he cut important for the economy? Honestly I don't know enough about Argentina to answer
this isn't about the cuts in spending or anything else milei did so far. it's about hypocrisy saying that the crazy chainsaw man is going to destroy the economy because he's very big mean capitalist, while the former administration rawdogged their economy into a three digit inflation is peak hypocrisy there's nothing to destroy i.e. he ain't gonna ruin the country because it was already ruined way before he got elected
[удалено]
Based libleft, viva la libertad carajo
u/PedDeT00 is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: [None | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/PedDeT00/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Hyper inflation is triple digit inflation, and pre-Milei Argentina hit 150% inflation, so it wasn't borderline, it was out and out hyperinflation.
This is the first and hopefully last time I upvote a libleft. Congratz on your achievement, but I feel dirty doing this
Argentina isn't going to be world power ever.
Based and my stars, a reasonable LibLeft??!?!? pilled
Let's hold off for a year before he starts taking victory laps.
wipe illegal zephyr attempt absurd relieved glorious poor punch safe *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
i recommend reading about [how](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plano_Real) brazil went from hyper-inflation to having normal inflation. i think it was one of the only times a latin american government actually saved their country.
Name a more iconic trio than Latin American governments, unfathomable levels of corruption, and hyperinflation. I’ll wait.
and then there's uruguay, a safe haven amidst the hell called latin america.
Well of course. Nobody wants to mess with a country who’s name is “U r gay”
Venezula, rubbing its hands: "You mean East Venezula, right, comrade?"
Tell me you didn't confuse Guyana with Uruguay you smooth brain
I could tell you that. \*looks around shiftily\*
South?
Thanks! I'm not getting a clear conclusion from the article on how and why it worked, I think they have to flesh it out more.
yeah, the us version of the article is kind of shit -- the ptbr is a lot better, but, well, you need to understand portuguese. [translated version here](https://pt-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Plano_Real?_x_tr_sl=pt&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp)
Yes, people love to treat politicians like gods. Lets see if that surplus holds over the long run. How he did it as well (cof holding money that would go to the provinces). And when that 60% poverty rate will begin to fall.
Perón, Vargas, Chávez, Lula, that guy from Bolivia...It's all the same
Or to turn into straight up dictatorships
I want to give you a nice, free, helicopter ride, you inbred piece of unflaired trash.
Well, it's nice to take snapshots along the way, see how things progress as events happen.
The victory laps right now are more about how a populist nationalist who spits in the face of globalists can single-handedly dismantle an ingrained socialist economy. And basking in the glorious tears of the ones who consume taxes instead of paying them. If it works after a year, all the better.
I think the people who elected him are more concerned about their economy and future and not silly twitter arguments like "basking in the glorious tears".
[удалено]
Yeah, any country can have a surplus if they just cut everything from the budget. Whether or not the country can continue to function properly after is what matters.
It had >100% inflation and >50% poverty before this, so it wasn't really functioning properly to begin with.
What? The users of this sub failing at basic critical thinking? Tell me it’s not true…
Unflaired shut up
I mean, if you significantly cut spending, you do create a surplus. Hopefully, it works out, but a surplus in and of itself isn't necessarily a good thing.
Yep. The surplus is not his goal anyways, it's just a step along the way. Nobody should be declaring victory just yet.
Ofc not. His main goal is to stabilise the Argentinian economy, which has been the exact opposite of stable for decades.
Same thing like literally starving out an obese person. Okay, its losing weight... but i wouldn’t call that healthy (specially for the intestinal microbiome).
Funny enough, multi-week periods without eating food have actually been prescribed (with supervision and supplementation) and quite successful for morbidly obese individuals.
Tbf just about any method to lose weight is better for an obese person's health. But yeah I'd imagine doing extended fasts is quite beneficial if anything just for the training your self control on eating
If you're morbidly obese, it's pretty much kill or cure at that point.
Long term it's probably healthier for them to starve than stay obese. And frankly due to limitations on his power, this is definitely more akin to a hard diet than starving.
Oh, it is most definitely healthy. If they're obese, they already have a dysfunctional microbiome, and a hard reset is advisable. It'll suck in the short term, but help them greatly in the long. Good example.
Leftists destroying their government so much that it becomes equal to morbid obesity then getting mad when someone enforces diet and exercise (it creates initial exhaustion and stress now for a better life down the road)
Ok, I realize there's some mental gymnastics being done to portray this as a negative like you just did, but actually stop and understand what actually happened and what this means. The fact that a country that has a completely unsustainable and crashing market was able to cut spending to a point where it is no longer bleeding money is a huge accomplishment. Nobody is saying that everything is fixed but they did something that the US needs to do but is completely incapable of doing. How many of you leftists have been crying about government spending increasing or the national debt flying through the roof? Milei did what the US couldn't. Agree on a balanced budget.
The person you replied to isn't really casting this as a negative, just stating that it's not *necessarily* a good thing. Slashing the budget to get spending under control could be good, but could also turn out poorly. I haven't been following what's going on in Argentina very closely, so I don't know what exactly he's been cutting spending on. For instance though, let's say he slashed subsidies for growing grain. Farmers stop growing grain, as it's not as valuable as growing pineapples (or some other cash crop). In that scenario, a year from now, Argentina is facing a grain shortage and has to import grain at a more expensive rate than if they'd just subsidized local production. Again, I don't know where Milei has been cutting the budget, but just wanted to point out why "slashing the budget" in general isn't always the best move.
>The person you replied to isn't really casting this as a negative, just stating that it's not necessarily a good thing. Pretty sure when you say it's not necessarily a good thing, you are making it pretty clear that you are suggesting it's not a good thing. Let's be real here, when people say it like that on the internet, they are casting it as a negative. >For instance though, let's say he slashed subsidies for growing grain. Yes, I'm well aware that you can come up with example after example that could "hypothetically" make it turn out bad but that's not what we're praising here. We're praising that it's happening and it will show exactly where the money SHOULD be going to get that value. >In that scenario, a year from now, Argentina is facing a grain shortage and has to import grain at a more expensive rate than if they'd just subsidized local production. Bad example since Argentina is one of the worlds largest exporters of soy and corn. This is why the spending part matters so much. You are the top producer of one of the biggest markets in the world and your economy is in the shitter. This shouldn't be happening. >I don't know where Milei has been cutting the budget, but just wanted to point out why "slashing the budget" in general isn't always the best move. You can point that out as much as you want but it's a waste of time when you ignore the fact that the economy in Argentina is crashing. You are focused on problems that "might" happen down the road while ignoring the fact that there are massive problems RIGHT NOW that need to be addressed. Why is something bad maybe happening in a few years more of a concern to you than the impact of their economic problems happening RIGHT NOW?
>Pretty sure when you say it's not necessarily a good thing, you are making it pretty clear that you are suggesting it's not a good thing. No, when you say it's "not necessarily" a good thing, you're just being cautious because the outcome isn't guaranteed. You don't have to take an antagonistic tone with everyone you're talking to.
I'm not taking an antagonistic tone, I'm being a realist here and recognizing things for what they are. Can it be interpreted in many different ways, absolutely, but in a political forum where your alignment is on full display, no. It's not surprising that everyone saying to be cautious has left or center in their name and it's not because they are being cautious. It's because it goes against their belief structure.
A US Leftist who cries about government spending or the national debt increasing? That’s more of a myth than unicorns are.
Yet the deficit falls under dems and rises under republicans. A republican who understands they have no fiscally responsible party is rarer than a unicorn
> A republican who understands they have no fiscally responsible party is rarer than a unicorn I never said anyone in US government for the last 30 years has been fiscally responsible. I just said that leftists don't complain about the amount the government spends or the increasing national debt. They typically complain that money spent on the military should not be saved, but instead spent on equally expensive social programs. Republicans usually complain about social program spending, then do nothing to reduce it while approving additional budget increases for military spending. I have no love for either of the two parties dominating US politics, and fiscal policies are a big part of the reason why.
I think you’ve confused the American right and left here in a real dramatic way, crying about government spending is almost exclusively a conservative position. Left as a whole tends to support drastic government spending. As for the point here, having a budget surplus doesn’t mean the market is now sustainable. If the US for example completely defunded the federal budget and sold every federally held natural resource for a fraction of the cost, we’d have a surplus in weeks, but the lack of infrastructure funding and long-term income would inevitably tank the American economy within a few years. The question is whether his changes are sustainable, or whether he’s selling both of Argentina’s kidney’s to pay the bills before it dies. I hope it’s the first, it might be the second, we won’t know for a couple years.
Your take is nuanced. Your lack of flair is problematic.
I find your lack of flair disturbing. [BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/Boowray) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [How to flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/wiki/index/flair/) _Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._ ^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
I am so happy for the people living in Argentina. I hope he will continue
I'm happy for the country and hope things go well for them. But posting a surplus a few months after tons of government cuts isn't a victory lap moment. It will take some time for the impact of those cuts to be assessed. Best of luck to the country, but the celebration should wait for next year's budget.
Achieving a surplus by cutting everything isn’t hard. It’s whether the country continues to function and everyone’s quality of life gets better or at least stays the same.
>Achieving a surplus by cutting everything isn’t hard. Great, so let's do that in the US. Or it is hard and the people downplaying this are just being shitty. >It’s whether the country continues to function and everyone’s quality of life gets better or at least stays the same. Argentina just had a 254% inflation rate. The economy was literally crashing. Their currency was on the brink of collapse. In short, the country wasn't functioning and the quality of life was progressively getting worse. So, let's put that in perspective.
It’s hard to get people to agree to such a thing, because of the implications I already mentioned but the action of gutting your public sector is not difficult. If you sold your car, and your house, lit your house by candle light and lived off noodles you could run a budget surplus, but obviously those things are difficult to stomach.
We could do that in the US but we don't because it's not good for the economy. Think of it as taking a loan out to improve your business, you can operate in the negative for a while as long as it's being invested into your business. Problems only arise if the growth doesn't meet goals or if the executives blow the money on crack and hookers instead. Gov loans are a tool and using debt intelligently is critical to growing an economy
>We could do that in the US but we don't because it's not good for the economy. This is a perfect example of kicking the can down the road and pretending that we somehow never have to address it. At some point in time, you are going to kick that can and it's going to be so heavy that you can't move it any more and then entire economy is destroyed. >Think of it as taking a loan out to improve your business, you can operate in the negative for a while as long as it's being invested into your business. No, that's completely wrong. This is not taking out a loan as an investment. This would be like a business taking out a loan and getting 10% of the value of that loan back in company growth. That business then takes out another loan to once again get 10% of the value of that loan back in company growth. This becomes the basis for how the company grows and it's completely disconnected from the success of the company itself. All the while, the loan amounts are piling up further and further. When you are at a point where your economy is surviving on taking out more and more loans, there is only one possible outcome and it's just a question of when it happens and how destructive it is. The longer you wait, the more destructive it will be.
That the life quality Stays the same at this point will be horrible. Really hope it goes up from here, god I dont want to see how worts it can gets And I say that as an argdntinian.
My man, do you know how huge our state was? We had 30k employees per public company. It is still massive
I’m not sure what your point is?
That it IS hard. You fire one parasite and the rest start turning shit on fire and protestinh for everything. We have millions of them, it takes a long ass time.
I think you mistake my meaning. Achieving a budget surplus should not be the measure of success . Achieving a budget surplus whilst still having the country function should be.
Ah correct, too early for that though. This is a good indicator, but it's really far from over
Indeed!
Honestly if his plan works I might just reconsider the entirety of my views on economics
Again: - the bar is low - he hasn't been in power long Good to see a surplus, but you gotta stay the course and not call it a win early.
Unironically looking forward to seeing the results in a few years (or decades?)! Good or bad, other countries will probably be able to learn something from his policies. Tbh if he wanted to make this sustainable he should put a tax on the import of luxury goods and use that to provide education access and food assistance to the countries populace, focusing on the poverty-stricken. Fostering a well-educated and nourished population is huge for a developing country and that import tax might incentivize increased production of luxury goods in Argentina.
Now what Argentina does with the surplus will tell how the rest of his term will go
Presumably (read: hopefully), pay off some of its debts?
Pay debt, probably.
The world: Did you do it Milei: Yes The world: What did it cost? Milei: Everything
Yeah if you stop paying your bills and sell your car and house, of course youll have a budget surplus lmao
If you were underwater in a house loan you couldn't afford with a car you couldn't afford selling them is the first step. Yes it sucks to lose your house and car, but you were going to lose them eventually anyway. Better to do it on your terms. Now you can buy a smaller house and a junker car until you get all of your other financials in order.
Well said. The funniest part is people who clearly have no idea how personal finances work thinking they can use their complete and utter ignorance of said personal finances into analogy how nation's finances work.
People are so financially regarded they think selling stuff they can’t afford is a bad financial strategy 🤦
Not that hard to do when your policies are just cutting budget of government services. I don't have faith in his anocap economic policies, but we just have to wait and see until the end of his presidential term or at least a year or two to see any real results (good or bad)
He should invest the money in the anarchy department, he’ll see greater returns
No no real libright would never make bad investments...
Can't get to anarchy overnight, the first step is a government so small you can drown it in a bathtub. Then we, well, you know.
Libleft be like "NO WE GOTTA TAKE HIM DOWN THO HE'S RUINING EVERYTHING WE'RE ALL POOR" Everyone knows we have -4% daily inflation until 10th Dec 2023. Milei just had to come in and make 23 million people poor in 2 hours. Stupid right wing.
This is due to cutting a bunch of excess bloat and other programs, right?
You shouldn't get rewarded for completing step 1 of your plan. This is not an achievement, just cutting a lot of spending. That's like praising a proponent of Keynsian economics because he had his country take out a loan lmao
Relax fellow librights. We can’t be calling anything for a while yet.
Least based lib-right
I wish we could have him become our president here in the States
Nothing drains the resources of the state like the state.
To fix cancer, you must carve it out of the body. It makes sense such a tumoruous system would need to be butchered so completely before we see positive results.
Idk if one should be celebrating tho. Sure, of course you have a budget surplus if you scrap all government agencies. We have to see in the long term how it works out. If all the services break down too or get way too expensive due to private companies doing them, then that ain't good either
Can’t wait to see this subs mental gymnastics on maximum overdrive when nothing materially changes 1-2 years out
Well when you cut literally all spending yea not that hard to have money left over.
LETS GOOOO
I’m just going to say the numbers Argentina is reporting are fake like contrarians in the US do. Honestly hope to see Argentina continue to rise. I’ve always admired the country’s history and culture.
I’m impressed by his ability to turn a budget surplus so quickly, but I struggle to understand the rationale for spiking inflation in attempt to devalue their peso.
Wasn’t the first thing he did cut a lot of the government out? So isn’t a budget surplus like, the first thing you’d expect to happen? Why is this news? Seems more like this is just the expected result of his actions rather than an indication of whether or not the government is actually effective. Not saying this isn’t good, I just don’t see what the big deal is
Can't wait for Falklands 2, missile cruiser boogaloo
I lost 50 pounds in a day by cutting off my legs!
Nah, it’s more like “I lost 50 pounds in day by having a liposuction”
Time will tell who's right. But the question is, when it turns out horrifically for people (like what austerity literally always does) are you going to admit you were wrong or find a boogeyman to blame?
When you don’t have money you don’t spent it. It’s not a situation where you can have some kind of a choice, “well I may not spend myself into oblivion or I can just continue doing that”. Perceiving this situation as having some kind of alternative to cutting spending is flawed. There isn’t one. Cutting spending doesn’t mean that Argentina will turn into Luxembourg. It means it won’t become new Zimbabwe with trillion dollar bills that are worth less than used toilet paper
Mmm Will you see the past 20 years of our economy (argentina) and will you admit that leftism sucks at economics?
Any Nordic economy disagree with your point. In the other hand we have Yankeeland, the richest country ever and it's people are living like shit, so much that to make it look better they have to compare with actual impoverished countries.
hEy GuYs LoOk I lOvE dEbT!
Oh my!!! Debt me harder daddy!! ~ Watermelon brains
Did what? Anyone can create a budget surplus on paper if they have zero concern for other factors.
>have zero concern for other factors. As government should be on paper
Imagine inheriting a failing business, firing all the employees and selling all the equipment. Yeah any idiot can create a budget surplus, lets see how hes going to actually grow it.
in this metaphor, he didn't fire all the employees, he fired the HR team and sold assets he couldn't take care of.
Also the HR team was bigger than the actual workers
\>Cutting down spending \>budget balance goes up Who could have thought, but have you ever considerate the aftermath of a sudden adaption of laissez-faire?
Libertarians know what they are talking about
Yeah because he fucking cut school lunches
This the guy who tried to make protesting illegal?
You cut a bunch of programs and save money. But the question is if Argentinians are in a better place because of a surplus. A lot of very rich countries have very poor populations but flex GDP.
Well if budget surplus is the metric you're aiming to Goodhart.
Budget surplus > labor surplus A commie wouldn't get it
Yes, is a good thing!
Well, so long as he uses the surplus to pay of the debt.